Baccarat Quotable Quote

This quote is from one of my favorite gambling book, enjoy, hey hey.

"I am told that a recently published book recounts the story of a man who is supposed to have earned a good living for 30 year doing nothing but grinding out small hourly winning with the following parlay series:
111 22 44 88 (total risk 31) "

Beat the Casino, Frank Barstow, pg. 60

 

That's funny. I rarely engage in conversation with people at the casino. A couple weeks ago I happened to be sitting next to a guy and we started talking. He was obviously new to the game and you wanted to show me it's great progression that a very successful Gambler friend of his had showed him. That was the progression except he didn't play the 88. He played it straight down on Bank.

I saw him there a few days in a row. He did well at first but then got in trouble and some long P"s. The last time I saw him he told me he was getting some money back but I haven't seen him since. Maybe his downfall was not playing the 88? I can't remember the last time I saw 10 players in a row.

 

Emile Boral once stated.

To which Barstow responded

 

So with the parlay series, you need to win two in a row, and these are the levels?

And winning two in a row on any level then you profit?

 

Yeah except for the 111. Once you lose the first three in a row you could be in some real trouble.

 

I ain't played for the past coupla months cuz I got squeezed, but I made a nice fulltime income at the baccarats table for over 12 year, and did so using, strictly parlay/double win style progression. So yeah, that Barstow is one shrewd cat, hey hey.

 

Soxfan the prog in the bairstow book looks a bit short to me. would you please post your progression that you have used
thanks bob

 

The progression in Barstow book is nine step and that works but I would never run a style less than nine step. Also, I'm a cat that likes a shot at increase reward for increase risk, so I prefer a style that give you the opportunity to capture more units the deeper you go into progression ladder. That way you can actually make more units if yer strike rate is underperforming, I use a lotta style over the year but the one I use for most of the time is as follow, hey hey:

1-1-1-1-2-3-4-6-8-11-15-20-30 units bets
3-2-1-0-2-3-3-5-5-6-7-7-10 units profits

 

thanks sox 13 step for a 103u bust, i guess 4 banks would be needed to feel secure ?. at $25 a hand a 10k investment. if we are going to take them on, best to get serious with a solid bankroll. o.k the search for a solid bet selection, i prefer a mechanical trigger, dont wont to be umming and arrhing when that 30u bet has to be pushed out.
o.k mate thx for the info
cheers bob

 

No, I got 1000 unit backin my play with this style, hey hey.

 

please explain to me why you have so. If the bet unit is 1, then why is the win unit 3 (it seems like there should be 1, because the win doubles your bet) and so on

 

It's a parlay so you win 1 unit and bet that plus your original unit. So, you win again and you win two unit. So, you have four unit in front of you, four minus your original unit equal three unit profit for the first bet in progression ladder, hey hey.

 

A coupla year back I post a typical week worth of my play and result on the bs site, if you want to take a looksee, hey hey.
https://betselection.cc/baccarat-forum/a-week-in-the-life/15/

 

Hahah. I forgot about that. Good one. I do incorporate it into my own play but I start 2223... BUT... I haven't gone straight through. What I generally do is freeze the unit after a win OR even backup one tier. If I, for example, am losing and get some back (usually half or so) I simply restart at a lower conceit. I think the most I ever went up is 11 and parlay to 22. MM. Nothing written in stone. Not so easy to get 90% shoe win without getting clipped! Kudos to soxfan for sticking with it.

J

 

thanks soxfan i checked it out, so i need a 90% shoe win rate, and i guess a 55% win rate to be in the hunt. How do you approach bet selection ?,
Wait for say 10 hands then start, or bet from start, do you trend ( guess) ?, any pointers on bet sel would be appreciated, i seen one of the shoes you got clipped you lost 10 from 11 bets, you dont work to the abandon a bad shoe theory ?.
o.k thanks again
cheers bob

 

Nah, I ain't gotta win 55%. In fact I could win well and regular just winning 16.66666 percents of my placed bet, so long as the w/l cluster a certain way. Over time I win just under 50 percent of my placed bet and that is enough. My game is all about survival, and gotta capture enough parlay to stay ahead of the progression busts outs. It ain't rocket science baby, hey hey.

 

Somebody posted a modification to the "sure-win" progression years ago on the GG site (reproduced below)

Stretching the progression to 18 steps or even 20 steps.

Personally I don't like "Sure-Win", have never used it because if I'm having a rough ride at the tables, have lost a series of bets and finally win a bet, the last thing I want to do is leave the last bet and profit on the table to let it ride. After losing a series of bets when I do grab a win, I want remove the win from the table and lower the next bet. That's just my way of approaching it.


Sure-Win with the Slide Option

This is an eighteen bet negative progression with a potential profit of 2, 3 or 4 units (depending on when the win comes) that could top out at a $488 loss. Thus my suggestion, "the slide".

Assume you lose the first three bets (whether outright or in the parlays or combination is immaterial). The next bet should be 2 units with a current total loss of 4 units. Let's say we win part one of bet #4 or 2 units and now can decide whether to continue to part two of bet #4 (parlay) or use "the slide"

The slide locks up the initial 2 unit win and takes two steps back down the progression to bet #2. The two unit win reduces our current total loss to two units and we continue the progression from here as a new bet. Keep in mind that while we are now at bet #2 level we are really repeating the fourth position of the progression as we count out 18 bets (14 bets left after this one).

Four things can occur because of "the slide":

We can still run through the full 18 bets and lose....but the total loss has dropped from $488 to $274 (reduced by about 44%).

If you are still willing to risk that $488, you can (for $1 more or $489) carry out the progression to a total of 20 bets.

Potential profit now is 1, 2 or 3 units. There is always a price to be paid to reduce risk or extend the progression.

If after the slide you loss the next three bets (combination of loss doesn't matter) you can take a second slide.


The Second Slide (this gets a little confusing):

We are again at the fourth bet after the first slide (again we lost those first three bets). Assume we've won part one of bet #4 or 3 units and have a total running loss of 7 units. We can either parlay or slide again. Lock up that win which reduces the loss to 4 units and slide down two positions on the progression back to bet #3. Remember, even though we are at bet #3 for amount to bet, our count position on our allotted 18 total bets is 7 (11 bets left).

Having taken the second slide, three things can occur:

We can lose all the remaining bets.....but our total loss that started at 488 units and was reduced to 274 units, now drops to 154 units or almost 70% less.

If you are OK with that 488 units wall and risked 2u more or 490 units, you can make a total of 22 bets.

Potential profit is now a combination of breaking even 31% or 1 to 2 units 69% on a progression win. Again a price is paid.


I'm not saying this is how the progression should be played, it's just an option.

The original system went several extra steps in the progression.

After 123, we have 164, 219, 292.

Regardless of whether one stops at the 8th step or goes all the way to the end, the bettor has to have faith that the game they are playing will have two wins that are back-to-back. It is really that simple.


If someone doesn't believe that this can be accomplished or occur, then do not play the method.
Otherwise, it is wise to stay with the method as it was laid out to profit.

There is nothing wrong with your conservative approach. Many times using progressions such as a Fibo, when I was laying out bets in the hundreds - I'd quit at a break-even point rather than stay where I was for a subsequent win.

It is all about risk and reward. And a bit about faith of a double occurring before the end of the progression.

It is good to have an alternative (as your point enumerates). Everyone has to take into consideration their bankroll and the amount of risk they are willing to take.

Glad to see someone dissecting bet plans for a more conservative approach.



There is a ton of decent info over at GG, including a fair amount of debate regarding Truth Tables, unfortunately the site is infected, it's like visiting Chernobyl, I ignore the virus warning but limit my time over there.

 

I think you misread about needing 55% win rate. That was the rate that from the set of shoes soxfan posted. It's not the win rate that's important as he states below, it's the double win. The 90% shoe win rate is important and is based on an ESTIMATE of average units won per shoe against losing the full Monty. It's pretty close. Work it backwards and figure how many units you got to win on average if you lose 103 units twice in 10 shoes. Comes out to about 30 units (including commission) per shoe. Half that if you can achieve the 90% - much more doable.

 

thanks jim, i understand its the parlay % win rate thats important, what i have found is that the higher your overall win rate is the higher your WW will be, thats what gets me with soxfan is that he states his overall win % is around 50% and yet his W-L clusters suggest a much higher % strike rate. Maybe soxfans bet selection is ROCKET SCIENCE ?.
cheers

 

Nah, the Jimske a shrewd cat and in the thread I posted he rightly took note of the fact that I got clipped for a progressions busts and loss in shoe where I won 50% of placed bet but actually won decent cake in other shoe where I picked less than 50% winner. So, it rally ain't rocket science, baby, hey hey.